560 P.3d 1149
Kan.2024Background
- These consolidated Kansas Supreme Court cases concern a prolonged custody and adoption dispute over a minor, E.A., between his divorced paternal grandfather (D.A.) and grandmother (S.P.) and her husband (D.P.).
- E.A. lived exclusively with his grandfather for six years, who acted as his de facto parent, before being taken by grandmother and her husband following a request for visitation, after which they initiated a secretive adoption proceeding.
- Grandfather unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in the adoption case and separately brought a parentage action, alleging presumed paternity under the Kansas Parentage Act based on notorious recognition and the biological father's relinquishment.
- The district courts denied grandfather standing in both cases, quickly finalizing E.A.'s adoption by grandmother and her husband and terminating the biological parents' rights; grandfather appealed both rulings.
- The Kansas Supreme Court ultimately consolidated the appeals, finding that grandfather had pled sufficient facts for party-in-interest status and was entitled to present his case in the adoption proceeding. The prior adoption decree was vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Intervene in Adoption | Grandfather: He is a proper "party in interest" (as de facto/adoptive parent, legal guardian, or under paternity theory), entitled to intervene. | Grandmother: Statutes do not list grandparents as parties in interest; grandfather not recognized as legal parent or adoptive party. | Grandfather pled sufficient facts; is a party in interest under several categories; entitled to intervene and present evidence. |
| Presumed Paternity Claim | Grandfather: Acts as E.A.'s father; has notorious recognition and written agreements from biological father supporting parental status. | Grandmother: Only biology or adoption establish parentage; grandfather is not a legal or biological parent under Kansas law. | Grandfather’s pleadings allege sufficient facts to allow prosecution of paternity claim under statutory notorious recognition presumption. |
| Appellate Jurisdiction | Grandfather: Entitled to appeal as an interested party, as parent/petitioner who claimed parental rights. | Grandmother: Grandfather lacked statutory standing to appeal; not recognized in adoption statutes as interested party. | Grandfather may appeal as an interested party (parent and petitioner) under K.S.A. 59-2401a. |
| Validity of Prior Adoption Decree | Grandfather: Adoption was obtained by misrepresentations, without due consideration of his longstanding relationship and rights. | Grandmother: Adoption was properly finalized with valid consents from biological parents. | Adoption decree vacated; case returned to status prior to the decree. Grandfather allowed to participate as interested party. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.F., 312 Kan. 322 (Kan. 2020) (on timing of parental recognition for presumed parentage)
- In re Adoption of T.M.M.H., 307 Kan. 902 (Kan. 2018) (adoption and parentage standing standards)
- Board of County Commissioners of Sumner County v. Bremby, 286 Kan. 745 (Kan. 2008) (standard for standing at pleading stage)
- Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 (Kan. 2013) (parens patriae function in child welfare)
- Kaelter v. Sokol, 301 Kan. 247 (Kan. 2015) (standing to appeal in Kansas courts)